czx4f4bd

This is just flat-out incorrect. Scientists have found cats are plenty intelligent and simply don't cooperate with testing. https://www.science.org/content/article/cats-rival-dogs-many...

A reminder that private companies are not exempt from criticism merely because their actions are within the letter of the law.

MDN says border-radius was added to Chrome in 2010 and Firefox in 2011, and Chrome added the prefixed version in 2008. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/border-radi...

It's quite something to denounce the arrogance and pompousness of others while proclaiming that they "haven't seen the light" and declaring they've taken the easy path in life.

> No other profession does this kind of pompous comparisons.

Learning from other disciplines is an incredibly common practice across many professions and often leads to insights as people discover new perspectives and ways of working.

J. M. Baruch - Creative Writing as a Medical Instrument https://bioethics.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/publication-i...

Gill Darling - On Being a Writer and an Accountant http://booksbywomen.org/on-being-a-writer-and-an-accountant/

Matteo Pericoli - Writers as Architects https://web.archive.org/web/20220211003226/https://opinionat...

Yes. Vulnerabilities exist with respect to a system's expected functionality and must be understood and weighed against other requirements to determine the system's security model. Even if you think the expected functionality is stupid or impossible, that doesn't change the fact that the system has a particular expectation that it doesn't meet and a mechanism by which that expectation can be violated, i.e. a vulnerability.

To put it another way, consider physical locks, which must inherently be able to resist direct physical tampering by an adversary. Under your definition, no flaw in a lock could be considered a vulnerability since any lock can eventually be cracked. The problem is that this doesn't provide us any useful insight, it just makes the word "vulnerability" useless. It's already well-known that any lock can eventually be cracked, but tradeoffs still have to be made in deciding which lock to use for a certain situation.

Check out Emacs' org-babel. https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/intro.html

I like it a lot more than Jupyter because Org mode is more text-driven, but I can easily insert code blocks and execute them with Babel. The literate programming features are quite interesting as well.

Scrivener came to mind for me as well. I've adopted Emacs' org-mode as my Linux-friendly Scrivener replacement and I like it a lot.

OneNote is pretty nice and was my go-to app on iPad for infinite whiteboard notes until I discovered ZoomNotes, the other app Curio made me think of.

Interesting concept. It's a shame this is macOS only.

On top of all the other points raised here, I'm mystified by the author's reference to the Solarwinds hack. The whole issue with the Solarwinds attack was that Solarwinds themselves failed to notice changes to their own internal code, allowing attackers to push malicious updates using their infrastructure. No amount of code dependency auditing by any of Solarwinds' customers nor by Solarwinds themselves would have prevented that.

Still not burning 6000 calories.

> In our study, we found calorie expenditure during chess competition (156.8 ± 65 kcal) and during running exercise (282.9 ± 82.7 kcal) were significantly different from each other, simply due to the overload effect of skeletal muscles during exercise.

https://journals.lsu.lt/baltic-journal-of-sport-health/artic...

Read that part again:

> It was in assembler then, but the code in question was equivalent to something like this:

> if (name[0] == '.') continue;

> This statement was a little shorter than what it should have been, which is

> if (strcmp(name, ".") == 0 || strcmp(name, "..") == 0) continue;

There's no strcmp() in the first example.

> Please note that this project is meant to be used for fun and learning purposes and not for practical use.

https://github.com/ronami/HypeScript#introduction

An AI arbitrarily banning someone for a completely innocuous post isn't broken?

If you're using a web server like Apache, that functionality is probably built in. Otherwise, you probably want something like Nginx or HAProxy. You can configure rules based on IP and use the logs to check the person's IP.

That said IP addresses are generally not static so you would probably be much better off just configuring HTTP basic authentication and giving the password to people to whom you want to grant access. Here's an example if you were to use Nginx as a reverse proxy: https://medium.com/pernod-ricard-tech/adding-basic-authentic...

This and the original article feel very much like solutions in search of problems. Beyond the issues with the original article, what's the point in a cryptographically secure hash from an untrusted environment? If someone were really determined to maliciously push broken code for some reason, they could just tamper with whatever generates the hash.

I intentionally didn't use Google as an example. Major search engines obviously have tricks to index things like this, though I'll note there are still gaps. For example, googling "v language data structures" produces nothing related to V itself.

That said, I'm specifically talking about trying to search things that Google doesn't index, like a Discord server, an internal wiki, or a specific non-textual filter on a public site. As mentioned, I tried searching for a specific Twitter thread about V from people I follow and didn't find it because they just called it "V", which on Twitter returns a ton of results for things like court cases.

I'm sure if I spent forever massaging my query I could track it down, but if it was called "vlang" or "VL" or something similarly distinct it wouldn't be a problem. For example, PHP, Perl, OCaml, SQL, Prolog, etc. are all quite easy to find regardless of where and how I'm looking.

Except that it's incredibly hard to search for if people just call it "V" and not something like "vlang". I was trying to search for a thread I saw about it on Twitter and failed miserably, even with the "posts by people you follow" filter, because all the results were about various "X v. Y" court cases.

Yeah, I actually had a similar thought as I wrote that, but I was too lazy to come up with a better analogy. I guess a clearer analogy would be "trying to teach someone to differentiate a function when they don't know what a function or a variable is".

I derinitely agree pedagogy is hard. I have many thoughts about how the pedagogy of programming is deeply broken that are far too numerous to drop in an HN comment. I would say I'm not arguing for a purely linear approach so much as making sure there's actual conceptual understanding at each phase of the learning process. Teaching OOP before someone really grasps programming well enough to actually need it feels very premature, but there are lots of elements of it that can be sprinkled in throughout the learning process.

> it's not difficult to imagine cases where you might actually use it. c.f. basically any game with dogs in it where they're a subclass of NPCs.

Except even in game design it's a bad idea once you get more than a handful of entity types. https://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/type-object.html

The problem here is that that "a-ha!" moment is completely fallacious and not actually helpful. You think you've gained some deeper insight, but any attempt to apply that understanding is all but guaranteed to result in pain and frustration. The mental model that OOP objects map directly onto real physical objects plagued me for years, because I could not understand how I was supposed to translate it into real code.

I finally broke through it after being forced to write a ton of enterprise Java, which helped me come to realize that classes and objects are useful units of abstraction for encapsulating related sets of data and behavior, as well as finally grasping the idea of composition and the utility of things like dependency injection, but I could've avoided years of pain if someone had actually explained that properly with concrete examples of useful object-oriented code. Since then, I've seen the same conceptual misunderstandings over and over from beginners and all of it comes down to the fact that these inane `Cat extends Animal` examples are simply wrong.

> When you've never written a line of code in your life, abstract things like "network protocols" and "file I/O" and "ImageDisplay" (which is neither an image nor a display) are confusing, and so frustrating, and so not useful for teaching a complete novice.

The solution here is not to teach them something that dooms them to even more frustration and confusion in the future. Also, if someone has never written a line of code ever, why are you teaching them OOP? If someone can't yet grasp concepts like network protocols and file I/O, OOP is literally not useful to them. It's like teaching someone calculus when they haven't even learned algebra yet. Start with the basics and then build up from there.

Wow, I was literally thinking about this like a week ago, wondering how viable it would be. This is great work. The ability to compile ANTLR to TypeScript types would potentially be a game-changer.

On the one hand, I sorta agree with you and I find some of the kneejerk anti-telemetry perspectives to be maybe overly paranoid. On the other hand, I do think there's a valid concern here because the telemetry is closed source.

Short of reverse engineering the official binaries and/or inspecting what it sends back to Microsoft, there's no way of knowing what it's actually collecting, which is understandably concerning given Microsoft's history. And you'd have to do that for every release, since any update could expand the scope of what they gather.

Personally, I don't quite care enough to bother doing something about it, but I can see why folks who are inclined to distrust Microsoft would not want to trust them on this.

Just to provide a counterpoint, I've been doing the same thing for 6 years now and I haven't found the same issues to be a problem. Even as someone with pretty intense social anxiety, I haven't encountered any awkwardness, and don't find it particularly inconvenient to have to look up the correct email in my password manager.

The only actual issue I can remember encountering was a weird glitch with Crashplan that wouldn't let me register with crashplan@[myfullname].com, so I ended up using backups@ instead. Also, my full name is tedious to have to spell out, so I switched to using [firstname].cloud as my email domain instead.

In my case, while I haven't caught any notable email sharing/selling, I've still found unique per-service emails useful for filtering and organizing messages. Many orgs these days don't bother to use a consistent From email, so if I want to find everything from XYZ corp, it's easier to search for everything sent to xyz@name.cloud than everything from no-reply@xyz.com and orders@xyz.com and info@xyz.net and email-list-123@xyz.email and so on and so forth.

You're assuming it's their choice. It's much more likely that they don't own all the IP and can't get the relevant rightsholder(s) to agree to make things public. Notice that they say "we were able to share" and mention "work[ing] through constraints" when talking about sharing more detailed schematics.

I imagine they can't say this explicitly because the terms of their business relationships are themselves confidential and they don't want to say anything that could jeopardize those relationships.

I mean, you're probably right to an extent, but I did actually have to close stuff periodically on my old laptop with 16GB of RAM.

I'm using 18GB on Pop_OS right now and often use more. The main contributors are browser tabs and VS Code. If I closed out the projects I'm not actively working on right now and hunted down anything hogging RAM, I could get back under 16GB, but the nice thing about having 32GB is I almost never have to do that.

It says that open access only covers articles from 1951 to 2000.

Repackaged man pages almost sounds surprisingly high quality for Packt. I've only encountered their content on O'Reilly's learning platform, so I've been lucky enough not to pay for any of it directly, but at this point I've been disappointed enough times that I just don't bother looking at anything they publish.

Not just small businesses, either: https://wordpress.com/notable-users/

I think you mean Viacom v. Google. Oracle v. Google wasn't related to the DMCA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....